Headlines

Fred Barnes

The survivor in chief

What we’ve just endured might be called a strategist’s election, and Mr. Obama’s strategists were victorious.

The president didn’t run on his record or a vision or a plan for the next four years. His campaign consisted of using policy favors to lock up the support of his party’s interest groups—liberals, labor, environmentalists, feminists, minorities—and dehumanizing his opponent, Mitt Romney. It worked.

The Obama campaign exposed the myth of the unenthusiastic Democratic voter. The idea was that millions who backed Obama in 2008 would be too dispirited to show up to vote on Tuesday, and a surge of Republican voters would elect Mr. Romney. I bought this notion and figured the Republican would win. Alas, the unenthusiastics voted, thanks in part to an Obama get-out-the-vote effort as effective as it was in 2008.

The Obama approach to winning re-election was very old-fashioned. It was time-tested. All that mattered was winning. Mr. Obama’s share of the vote declined from 2008, his rhetoric was far less soaring, and he neither did nor said anything to make it easier to tackle the fiscal crisis his presidency must now confront. Partisan and ideological polarization lives on in Washington.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

For two elections, Republicans have failed to alter the balance of power in Washington. A major cause is the divide in the party between party regulars and tea party conservatives. There’s overlap between the two groups, but when it comes to choosing Republican candidates, the gap can be wide, the feelings bitter. When tea party candidates win, the support they get from GOP regulars is often nominal. When regulars win, the tea partiers sometimes take a hike. The two sides don’t respect each other.

In 2010, Republicans lost at least three Senate races because tea party nominees were poor candidates. That kept Republicans from a 50-50 tie. This year, they lost two very winnable Senate elections because tea party-backed candidates were gaffe-prone.

If losing wasn’t bad enough, Republicans now must brace themselves for an onslaught of bad advice about how they must be less conservative, especially on social issues. But Republicans didn’t lose the White House because Mr. Romney was too conservative. George Allen didn’t lose the Senate contest in Virginia for that reason.

Nor should Republicans spend months on self-indulgent breast-beating. They have something Democrats can’t match: a great bench. Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal may have been too young to run for president in 2012, but they won’t be in 2016. Not to mention Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, Pat Toomey and the newly elected governor of Indiana, Mike Pence. The Republican future is brighter than it appears at the moment.

When tea party candidates win, the support they get from GOP regulars is often nominal. When regulars win, the tea partiers sometimes take a hike. The two sides don’t respect each other.

The reason there is a TEA Party is because the GOP Hierarchy has for too long taken them for granted. Conservatives are expected to vote for the name with the R next to it, open their wallets and give to the GOP, then keep their mouths shut as to input or policy.

I am rapidly entering the land of “who gives a ****?” If the American people want to reward this retard with unfettered power and near dictatorial use of the Executive Order to wishcast our way to paradise who am I to argue? I’m getting ready for the implosion he will cause economically.

Screw the GOP leadership. Screw the ~10 million White Voters who sat this one out. Screw the people who want to allow the democrats to balance the budget on the military’s back giving the civil service a pass.

I hate anyone who will reward the 11 years and rising war’s fighters with walking papers and screwing them out of their pensions while giving the UAW a de facto federal retirement plan.

The idea was that millions who backed Obama in 2008 would be too dispirited to show up to vote on Tuesday, and a surge of Republican voters would elect Mr. Romney. I bought this notion and figured the Republican would win. Alas, the unenthusiastics voted, thanks in part to an Obama get-out-the-vote effort as effective as it was in 2008.

The Obama approach to winning re-election was very old-fashioned. It was time-tested. All that mattered was winning. Mr. Obama’s share of the vote declined from 2008,

I have never seen anyone disprove there own case in just a few sentences. Obama’s share of the vote declined from 2008? Yes, yes it did. Along with his total vote. It dropped by a huge amount. more than any incumbent in history. He got 7 million less votes than he did 4 years before. Romney’s share increased but the Republican’s total vote didn’t.

The myth of the unenthusiastic Democratic voter wasn’t exposed, it was confirmed. Obama simply got some new unenthusiastic voters. The problem with Romney, and McCain, is that they invented a new myth, that of the unenthusiastic Republican voter. Both could not match Bush’s total in 2004 despite the fact that there were millions more registered Republicans.

President Special needs kid is in charge of the sequester and the war is not winding down. He loses more US troops per day of leadership than George W Bush did, he has a media shield that allowed him to cover up his borderline criminal incompetence on Libya, and he is purposefully Balkanizing the US population and NOBODY cares.

The angst I think it too much is about this country becoming liberal and giving up on conservatism. It’s still a 50/50 country and this was no mandate for liberal/progressive policies: it was a strategist’s victory and not an ideological one.

In any case, I’m reminded of T.S. Eliot’s line about “lost causes.” That aptly sums up my views about winning and losing.

When all is said and done…Obama should thank the media. They are the ones who made this election about small things. They are the ones who exploited and extrapolated every tiny insignificant “gaffe” made by a republican while turning a blind eye to the President for not only lying to the American people but running the most dishonest, divisive and demonizing campaign in US history.

And now the media feels even more empowered to be liars and shills for their masters.

And now the media feels even more empowered to be liars and shills for their masters.

They need to be burned to the ground.

HumpBot Salvation on November 8, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Yup the GOP refuses to attack the true source of Obama’s invulnerability. No problem I respect Mitt and do feel he had of the people running the best chance at victory, but so long as we have the Tea party weak kneed back biting sit out the vote types as a pillar of our coalition we need to thwart the media b/c the GOP caucus seems now at last to be buying into the media and allowing American idol nation to seep in to their own psyche not doing their homework enough to see where we’re heading.

No problem I will not donate to the GOP anymore I’ll donate to whatever group will destroy personally the media personalities who have decided they are partisan democrat operatives.

No violence, just investigation and putting the media’s skeletons on the type of display that they so enjoy nailing the GOP with and giving the democrats a pass on.

So, Fred’s message is that we have got to become the Pandah Bear Party, just complete pander to Hispanics to win their votes.

If an Hispanic voter says jump, we should just say “how high.” I get it. He’s right in a way.

But why can’t we take a reverse course. Castigating Hispanics for their love of big government? Ask them why it is they are so beholden to socialism? We should have focus groups. Grab Frank Luntz. Get in their heads, and find out what it is they find so appealing about government control of their lives?

Barack Obama shouldn’t take the oath next January, David Axelrod should.

Valerie Jarrett should. She is the real President, and the most dangerous person in America now.

Right Mover on November 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Absolutely 100% correct. This vile woman is the one calling the shots from behind the scenes. 0bama doesn’t take a dump without her permission. He is a rudderles, spineless, shallow, brainless pushover.

Axelrod was nothing more than the engineer responsible for 0bama’s campaign (which, admittedly, takes up more time in his schedule than actual governing).